Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Domestic Procedures

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

Since 1 October 2022, the Singapore International Commercial Court now has jurisdiction to hear cross-border restructuring and insolvency matters. In addition, foreign lawyers may be appointed to make submissions in restructuring and insolvency proceedings in the SICC. Lawyers may even enter into conditional fee agreements with their clients for selected proceedings provided that certain safeguards are met.

Singapore is getting serious about becoming the region’s international insolvency hub. In this inaugural podcast from the International Insolvency Institute, Hon. Kevin Carey (Ret.) of Hogan Lovells discusses Hon. Christopher S. Sontchi‘s forthcoming move from Delaware bankruptcy judge to International Judge of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC).

Introduction

In the context of insolvency, the principle of "modified universalism" (Universalism) is defined by Lord Sumption in Singularis Holdings v Prince Waterhouse Coopers as:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?